Cute passage: > bitcoins can be earned and spent, not just bought and sold. That makes no difference for the purpose of this discussion. If you buy a $2000 lap

Cute passage: > bitcoins can be earned and spent, not just bought and sold. That makes no difference for the purpose of this discussion. If you buy a $2000 laptop directly with bitcoin, for financial analysis it is the same as if you had sold the coins for $2000 and bought the laptop with that. The core of the post seems to be a claim that demand for Bitcoin is a recursion with no base case. But then this passage gets to the base case and just dismisses it as irrelevant -- since it could counterfactually transit through dollars. If you think a state currency is the only logically possible currency, that needs an argument (and an difficult one, given history). The rest I'd call rhetoric and side issues.